Michael Masi , who was race director during the 2021 Formula 1 season, was the center of all eyes and criticism of the Abu Dhabi GP due to the decisions he had to make when Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen were fighting for the championship. .
The situation was in favor of the Mercedes driver until on lap 53 Williams’ Canadian Nicholas Latifi crashed his car into the circuit protections and caused the appearance of the safety car.
The Mercedes driver was leading with worn hard tires that he had mounted on lap 15 and twelve seconds ahead of Max Verstappen , who entered the pits to mount soft tires taking advantage of the fact that he did not lose position with the safety car, although he would return to track behind several bent single-seaters.
On lap 56, a first message from the race direction indicated that the lapped riders “would not be allowed” to make up the lost lap, so they could not overtake the safety car (this being a procedure established in article 48.12 of the Regulations). Deportivo), suggesting the race could resume but keeping the drivers lapped up among the leaders.
However, on the next lap, race management sent an order so that the drivers who were between Hamilton and Verstappen could overtake the safety car and recover the lost lap, before indicating, also on lap 57, that the safety car would return. to the pits at the end of that same lap.
Once the race restarted, Hamilton lost his lead position to Verstappen ‘s Red Bull on better tyres, a move that not only decided the race, but also the 2021 world title.
The controversy did not take long to emerge: article 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations establishes that in such a situation, “each car” that is lapped must return to the leader’s lap, but also that, when this order occurs, it is necessary to wait until the next lap for the Safety Car to retire. Therefore, the exact application of this article at the end of the Abu Dhabi GP would have meant that the last lap would have been neutralized or could have been run under a green flag, but with the last lapped drivers sandwiched between the leaders.
Mercedes filed a protest after the race, pointing to the results, since according to them the procedure established by article 48.12 had not been followed. This protest was rejected, the stewards acknowledging that the procedure had only been followed “partially” (without the regulation indicating that this was possible), while establishing, again without it being indicated in the regulation, article 48.13 (which requires the safety car to pit once a message has been sent to all teams that the safety car is about to enter pit lane at the end of the lap).
The German team gave notice of their intention to appeal but ultimately did not proceed with the case, with Toto Wolff saying: “We think we had a very strong defence, and if you look at it from a legal point of view, if it had been tried in court Conventionally, our victory would have been almost guaranteed. But the problem with the International Court of Appeal is its structure: the FIA cannot prosecute its own mistakes, and there is a difference between being right and upholding justice.”
One day before the announcement of Mercedes, the FIA had informed, at the proposal of Jean Todt in his last great act as president, that they were launching an investigation into what happened, through a statement in which they explained that everything that had happened at the end of the GP had “generated important misunderstandings and reactions on the part of the Formula 1 teams, drivers and fans” and “a debate that currently tarnishes the image of the championship and the celebration” of the different titles.
That conclusion was reached on Thursday, when the FIA announced that Michael Masi would no longer retain his role as Formula 1 race director, ushering in a new structure.
Masi had also been the focus of controversy at other times of the season such as at the Belgian GP, where half the points were shared after hours and hours of delay and after several laps behind the safety car.
